18/501181 - VARIATION OF CONDITIONS 10, 16 AND 17 OF
APPLICATION 16/508659/FULL (DEMOLITION OF EXISTING DWELLING
AND ERECTION OF B8 WAREHOUSE BUILDING WITH ANCILLARY
OFFICES, DOCK LEVELLERS, ACCESS, PARKING AND LANDSCAPING
INCLUDING THE CREATION OF NEW WOODLAND AND ATTENUATION
POND) - LAND SOUTH OF REDWALL LANE, LINTON, KENT
All Members stated that they had been lobbied.
The Committee considered the report and the urgent update report of the
Head of Planning and Development.
The Principal Planning Officer advised the Committee that a further letter
of objection had been received, the main points being:
Questioning the conclusion that the principle of the development was
established as the Committee had made its decision on the basis of
original condition 10 which it was now proposed to amend;
Expressing concern that the report did not refer to improvements
required to increase capacity at Linton Crossroads and that no
reference was made to the cumulative impact on traffic due to the
recent grant of planning permission for a new medical centre in Heath
Commenting that the report contained no traffic statistics and there
was a failure to recognise the impact of the development beyond the
Councillor Cresswell of Linton Parish Council, Mr Allen, for the applicant,
and Councillor Fermor (Visiting Member) addressed the meeting.
During the discussion, it was proposed and seconded that permission be
granted subject to the conditions and informative set out in the report, as
amended by the urgent update report, with the amendment of the noise
conditions to require compliance with BS4142 at all times, and that Kent
County Council be asked to be a signatory (by way of a Deed of Variation)
to the HGV routing requirements of the S106 agreement for application
16/508659, which would apply to this permission, as this is not
enforceable by the Local Planning Authority. It was also suggested that
priority should be given to signage in regard to any mitigation from the
Traffic Displacement Contribution (section 5 of Schedule 2 to the S106).
An amendment was moved, seconded and carried that consideration of
this application be deferred to enable further negotiations with the
applicant regarding the redrafting of condition 10 (formerly 9) to specify a
time limit in months when the up to 32 in or out movements is permitted
(for example, 1 November to 31 May) with a lower threshold for the
months outside this time frame.
RESOLVED: That consideration of this application be deferred to enable
further negotiations with the applicant regarding the redrafting of
condition 10 (formerly 9) to specify a time limit in months when the up to
32 in or out movements is permitted (for example, 1 November to 31
May) with a lower threshold for the months outside this time frame.
Voting: 6 – For 5 – Against 1 – Abstention
If you cannot find what you are looking for in our search facility, you can use our A-Z index to find the service you require.